“Pull-Down” Ladder Still Ladder for § 240(1) Cause of Action
If it looks like a ladder, operates like a ladder, and fails suddenly without explanation, it’s probably a ladder for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1).
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department modified a Supreme Court, Rockland County decision that denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
In Jaimes-Gutierrez v. 37 Raywood Dr., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06187, plaintiff alleged he was injured while working for a security contractor at a townhouse construction project, and that the defendants violated Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Complaint alleges that plaintiff was installing an alarm and surveillance system at the subject construction site in an attic, and while standing on the retractable pull-down stairs that were bolted into the building, the pull-down stairs came off of their hinges, collapsed, and plaintiff fell to the floor. Notably, the pull-stairs were the only access point into the attic at that location, the pull-stairs could not be removed from their location, and plaintiff had to access the attic as part of his work.
The Supreme Court, Rockland County denied plaintiff’s motion, holding that plaintiff was not engaged in a “task that created an elevation-related risk” of the kind that safety devices listed in § 240(1) protect against. The Court also noted that an employee of defendant was “moving and positioning the ladder by hand, when he lost control of it and it fell on plaintiff’s head” and the fall of an object carried by hand, rather than the fall of an unsecured object, does not implicate the special protections of Labor Law § 240(1).
The Second Department disagreed with the lower Court, noting that since the pull-down attic stairs “served as the functional equivalent of a ladder at the time of the accident,” they operated as a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiff’s testimony that the pull-down stairs detached from the ceiling and fell as he was ascending them, caused him to fall, demonstrating that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1), and that this violation proximate caused the plaintiff’s injuries, entitling him to summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
The Second Department also noted that the lower Court should have granted the portion of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, which was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.21(b)(1) (ladders and weight bearing maximum load), because plaintiff’s testimony that the pull-down stairs fell as he was ascending them established prima facie that the defendant violated that industrial code section.
The Second Department reminds us in this decision that even though it’s not a ladder, if it acts like a ladder, it will fall under the safety devices listed in Labor Law § 240(1), triggering the statute’s special protections.
The Jaimes-Gutierrez v. 37 Raywood Dr., LLC decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.